MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Indian Americans: America's Shithole Success Story

Countries of origin are no measure of the quality of immigrants.

I came to America 32 years ago with my former husband from India, a country that would surely qualify as what this presidentIndian AmericansAdamCohn on Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND called a "shithole": It is poor, underdeveloped, polluted, and a place where—as one reader helpfully pointed out—people literally shit on the streets. Between my ex and me, we had two suitcases, $1,200 (the maximum foreign currency India allowed a couple to take out from the country), zero connections, and a ton of youthful obtuseness. Thanks to the last item, we saw only the possibilities of America and none of the challenges of making it in a new country where we had no family and few friends. Over the years, without ever collecting a dime in welfare, we managed to put ourselves through graduate school and our son, who is now working on his Ph.D. in economics, through one of the finest private schools in the country.

We are damn proud of what we've achieved. But the truth is that among Indian Americans, our story is so commonplace that talking about it would be sure-fire way to kill a good Bollywood bhangra party. Indeed, by most objective metrics Indian Americans are the most successful group in America.

It would not be unfair to call public (government) schools in India hellholes in a "shithole." Yet children of Indians in America kick ass when it comes to spelling bees. They won 10 of these contests in a row from 1998 to 2008—and in 2005, the top four contestants were all of Indian origin.

And it's not just mindless rote learning that Indians excel at, although that is a particular forte. About 70 percent of Indian Americans over 25 years old have college degrees—2.5 times more than the general U.S. population and 40.6 percent of them have graduate or professional degrees.

They are just one percent of the American population, but 3 percent of its engineers, 7 percent of its IT force, and 8 percent of its physicians and surgeons. Some 10-20 percent of all tech start-ups have Indian founders. Indeed, a joint Duke University-UC Berkeley study revealed that between 1995-2005, Indian immigrants founded more engineering and technology companies than immigrants from non-shithole countries like UK, China, Taiwan and Japan combined. They have risen to the top ranks in major companies like Satya Nadella in Microsoft, Sundar Pichai in Google and Indra Nooyi in Pepsico.

All of this—not to mention the Patel motel "cartel"—has made them the richest ethnicity (not just minority) in America. Their median income, as per the last census, is over $100,000—almost double that of the rest of the population. Their poverty rate is a good four points below the overall rate. And five of them are among Forbes top 400 richest people in America. This is even more remarkable because Indian Americans don't have ancestors going back generations and hence little social support. In fact, over 87 percent of Indian American adults in America weren't born here and 37.6 percent of them have been here about 10 years.

Indian Americans are living proof that hailing from "shithole" countries is no barrier to success in America (and, conversely, hailing from lovelier places is no guarantee of avoiding failure). Immigrants who choose to come to America don't in any meaningful way resemble the stereotypes of their native lands. Indeed, countries become "shitholes" because they are led by assholes. But these presiding assholes are no measure of the "quality" of the people they are governing.

And that too is good news for America.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Indian Americans are living proof that hailing from "shithole" countries is no barrier to success in America


    The president didn't qualify those countries as "shitholes" because he believes people coming from them can't succeed, Shikha.

    No, he calls them "shitholes", and called Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" because he thinks a better stock of immigrants would come from Norway. He also said "Asia" which means he's an idiot who doesn't know geopraphy. Just one more thing to add to the mix.

    This bigoted and stupid comments should be bis "basket of deplorables" moment but you can bet the gaggle of apologists will arrive here to call you names and agree with the president that, yes, the rest of the world is a "shithole" except Scandinavia, for some reason.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    because he thinks a better stock of immigrants would come from Norway

    What kind of crazy person would rather live around Norwegians than Mexicans?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Swedes?

  • Agammamon||

    Someone who really like boiled fish?

  • Flinch||

    Oh, the only thing I know is... I refuse to eat bait for breakfast. To that end, a B&B run by Norweigans is not something I'm likely to seek out.

  • kevrob||

    Steamed, not boiled fish is lovely. I prefer mine not preserved in lye, though. :)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    A racist one?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    According to a Washington Post article

    "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

    Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.

    No reporters claim he said that Norway is in Asia. The reports say he wants more immigrants from Asia and countries like Norway and fewer Immigrants from dysfunctional countries. I guess Asians don't count as brown people to folks like Old Mexican Speedo for some reason.

    Dalmia's post supports the idea that we should have more immigration from Asia. I agree that we should allow more legal immigration, but I prefer a random lottery open to people from all countries.

  • Flinch||

    It occurred to me long ago that open borders is absolutely guaranteed to fail when it comes to fixing the worlds problems. The current stampeding of the EU is witness to this: their immigrants may just serve to extend the problems in the countries they fled, because not enough people took a stand. But lets look at America: white flight built it, and therefore white flight can tear it down. First witness, Detroit: the people that didn't stay to fight and correct city hall, and fled to the new "suburbs" created during the Eisenhower administration may in fact be why the 1967 riots happened - the uneducated, lazy and poor left behind became the primary voting block. No, i'm not calling all remaining residents that, just noting the shift in mass as critical. In life, there are times when simply standing is a win. And in the case of the suburbs, we have republicans to thank for our major cities becoming progressive S-holes along with the loss of a bunch of good farm acreage.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    So, Trumps ideal immigrant is this guy, a talented Norwegian of Asian descent.

  • Flinch||

    Why did you do that to us? Smells like... the 19 Group and all the fakery that entails. As an odd parallel, the main reason I don't eat hot dogs is simple: they are over-processed.

  • kevrob||

    Norski/Persian gets counted as "Caucasian" in my book, just like Scots/Persian Catherine Bell,
    from JAG. Search her name, and pics. Do the same for Spanish/Iranian Sarah Shahi.
    Any bigots out there want to turn those ladies down because "they ain't white?"

    Tooji does sound like a Timberlake wannabe, but with more eurotranceedmtechno nonsense
    layered on the track. Count on Eurovision to provide awful pop music, with a few exceptions.

  • Karen24||

    Thank you. The issue wasn't the cuss word, it was the suggestion that we should only accept white immigrants.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So you're admitting that white people come from non-shitholes and non-whites do come from shitholes? That sounds racists as shit because white people do come from shitholes too.

    Have you even been to Monaco?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Greece, the biggest shithole in Europe.

  • ||

    The alt-right isn't much fond of "Southern Europe" either. Or Catholics, from what I've seen.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Many Trump supporters are themselves Catholic, idiot.

    Are you defining the "alt right" narrowly so as to only include KKK white nationalist types (in which case their political power is negligible)? Or are you defining the term to include all Trump supporters (in which case your statement above is incredibly false)?

    My guess is that, like other sophists, you're using whichever definition serves your pre-determined position at the moment.

  • ||

    I'm defining the alt-right to include alt-right people who I have spoken to online, who go on about stuff like the "Hajinal Line" and how people on one side of it are superior to those on the other.
    Conveniently, it excludes countries like Italy and Spain. Where, strangely enough, people have darker skin and more North African heritage.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I'm defining the alt-right to include alt-right people

    Holy circular definition, Batman!

  • hello.||

    I'm defining the alt-right to include alt-right people who I have spoken to online

    In other words, making shit up. You would be surprised how many imaginary online friends HazelMeade has who confirm everything she already thinks.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You may have confused that with the 'vaginal line'.

  • Flinch||

    Correction: idjit. Adding the colloquial twist is warranted in this case in responding to Hazel, who appears to be a life long dedicated hate machine.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Canada, the biggest shithole anywhere.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Russia has many qualities of a sh-thole.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Russia has had many of the qualities of a sh*thole for all of modern history. Indeed, so many Russian head of state have been monsters that I'm told the Devil requires all Fiends grade 3 or above speak Russian.

  • spec24||

    Exactly. These people need to rethink who the real racists are. I'll give them a hint, it's not the "deplorables."

  • MarioLanza||

    "...it was the suggestion that we should only accept white immigrants."

    Really? He said that? No. He didn't. Just another leftist shouting, "Waay-cist!!!"

  • ||

    He said he's rather have immigrants from Norway than from El Salvador, Haiti, or Africa.

    Let's see... what's the difference between people from Norway and people from El Salvador Haiti and Africa?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    People from Norway look like the people who made Hazel Meade miserable in high school?

  • ||

    Actually people from Norway look like me. I'm kind of a reddish blond.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Sounds like a yep.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Who are you?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Does the carpet match the drapes?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    There are a lot of differences between Norway and those countries. The most relevant would be the fact that Norway is a wealthy, stable, economically productive, democratic country, while the others are far from.

  • Zeb||

    They are also very comfortable with significant amounts of government involvement in people's lives, high taxes, etc. Is that the kind of immigrant we need?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Unfortunately, most of the world is very comfortable with big government, both the carrot and the stick. No other nation has anything remotely close to the Bill of Rights. So any immigrants we bring in are going to be suboptimal in that regard. But at least Norwegians bring with them some expectations of democracy and the rule of law, rather than the expectation that you get free shit if you are friendly with the government.

  • Eric Bana||

    Indeed, government spending in Norway is around 51% of GDP.

  • hello.||

    They are also very comfortable with significant amounts of government involvement in people's lives, high taxes, etc. Is that the kind of immigrant we need?

    Maybe it isn't but you're acknowledging that the differences between those countries runs a lot deeper than skin color. Which kind of demolishes HazelMeade the race-obsessed left wing social justice warrior's argument.

  • Paloma||

    Norway has crappy food and music. Also it's cold as fuck.

  • Paloma||

    Also no fashion sense. Or particular architecture or literature or anything that makes life happy.

  • spec24||

    The people from Norway don't come from a shithole. The others do. This isn't rocket science.

  • Mark22||

    The issue wasn't the cuss word, it was the suggestion that we should only accept white immigrants.

    Where the f*ck do you get that from? You're projecting your own racism onto others.

    What Trump suggested, and what reasonable people want and most other nations already do, is that we limit immigration to skilled, educated, and productive people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin.

  • ||

    Bullshit. He said "Norway" , not "educated people from Norway, Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa".

  • Bubba Jones||

    So you are angry about what he didn't say.

  • Paloma||

    Trump only likes immigration from Africa when they unwillingly come in the bottom of boats in chains. That way they already have jobs. When they want to come voluntarily, not so much. In fact, not at all.

  • JFree||

    Aha. That makes sense now. I've wondered what the good old days of American immigration is to the alt-right 'free market' crowd.

    It's not the documentation or the wall that really matters. It's the mandatory attendance at the auction on arrival. That way they can see how the free market works and then go home and assume their apprenticeship with the most successful. It obviously worked back in the days when immigrants were so happy they sang songs in the field

  • spec24||

    Wow, that's a stupid comment.

  • Mark22||

    Bullshit. He said "Norway" , not "educated people from Norway, Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa".

    Trump said he wanted more immigrants from Scandinavian countries, not that he wanted open borders with Scandinavian countries. He has said in other places how he wants immigration to function, namely through a merit-based system.

    Again: you are projecting your own racist thinking onto others, Hazel.

  • JuanQPublic||

    What Trump suggested, and what reasonable people want and most other nations already do, is that we limit immigration to skilled, educated, and productive people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin.

    Trump advocates nothing of the sort, because his metric for immigrants is not education, individual qualities, etc, but rather nationality.

    It's not necessarily "racist" as many Trump reactionaries have asserted, but it certainly has less to do with the individual and more with national identity.

  • ||

    Why should we be so afraid of calling people racist? Why bend over backwards to be fair to people who aren't going to return the favor? The logical and simplest explanation for why Trump favors Norwegians over Africans is race. If he meant something else, he would have gone to great lengths to explain himself differently, to distance himself from racists and make clear that wasn't what he meant. He never makes any such efforts. He would not even make such an effort in the aftermath of Charlottesville.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Words have meanings.

    If you call all men rapists, the term "rapist" and the associated outrage that the term used to illicit will fade. Plus, you will probably be ignored for being boy who cries wolf.

  • Paloma||

    Yes words have meaning. Like Africa being a continent. Not a country.

  • hello.||

    If he meant something else, he would have gone to great lengths to explain himself differently

    Normal people don't go to great lengths to delineate every race of people they do and don't like in every conversation to assuage the neuroses of fanatical left wing social justice warriors like you and they don't have to. Your wild imaginings are the furthest possible thing from reality. Nobody else owes it to you to explain themselves within the framework of your delusions.

  • Paloma||

    Right on Hazel! Trump mentioned Africa because that's where the majority of Black people live. It's not a country, it's an entire continent. He is so transparent. He could have mentioned individual countries in Africa, but no, each and every country where Black people live we can lump into one big shithole. That's what's racist AND offensive.

  • spec24||

    He need not mention individual countries, the entire continent is a shithole.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, you realize that Trumo singled out Norway due to the fact the the Norwegian a,bass adorn was visiting at the time, right? So maybe it was more about flattering an ally than anything to do with race.

  • Mark22||

    Why should we be so afraid of calling people racist?

    Well, let's see, HazelMeade: you categorize people by race, reason about rights and obligations and privileges based on race, and explain everybody else's motives in terms of race.

    Yes, Hazel, you are a racist. See, I'm not afraid to call you for what you are.

    And that's nothing new either: progressives have been racists since the late 19th century. All that ever changes with you is the form your racism takes. I think you are despicable.

    The logical and simplest explanation for why Trump favors Norwegians over Africans is race.

    There is no "Norwegian race", nor is there an "African race", except in the feverish imaginations of racists like you.

  • Mark22||

    Trump advocates nothing of the sort, because his metric for immigrants is not education, individual qualities, etc, but rather nationality.

    Trump has clearly and repeatedly called for a merit-based system. It's a simple consequence of such a system that we would get more Northern European immigrants and fewer African immigrants.

    Even if he had called for it, there would be nothing wrong with giving preferences to certain nationalities and exclude others, based on many factors: their welfare system, reciprocity, cultural compatibility, accuracy of records, education system, etc. Americans are not obligated to treat everybody across the globe equally.

  • MamaLiberty||

    I don't care where they come from, or what color they are (or "identify as"), all I care is if they mind their own business, leave me alone to mind mine, and don't attack me or "vote" to impose control over others.

    The desire/lust/compulsion to control the lives and property of others is the ROOT of all evil. It is the evil in all government, politics, race and every other kind of war.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Well said.

  • Tony||

    So clearly Norway, with its very strong pro-welfare state attitude, is among the very last places you want immigrants to come from.

  • Paloma||

    Pretty much. Plus the godawful food.

  • spec24||

    You let me now when people with average IQ's of 67 will be voting for more freedom instead of more goodies from big daddy government and perhaps we'll find some common ground.

  • Flinch||

    Funny you should mention white immigrants, Karen: the Visa Lottery Program is structured to specifically exclude white people by being available most anywhere except Europe and Russia, as I discovered a decade ago. So... one of the bills sponsors [Chuck Schumer] appears to have some kind of self loathing issue, bordering on I don't know what kind of pathology. It might beg a question: can we effectively remove imbeciles from congress using conservatorship rather than the ballot box? If they can't enter into a contract, then it follows they shouldn't be passing legislation either. Just a thought...

  • Mark22||

    No, he calls them "shitholes", and called Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" because he thinks a better stock of immigrants would come from Norway.

    Well, statistically he is certainly right: Norwegians and Japanese on average are far more educated and intelligent than Mexicans, Africans, or Greeks for that matter.

    the rest of the world is a "shithole" except Scandinavia, for some reason

    Simple: Norway is one of the few countries whose per capita GDP is comparable to that of the US.

    He also said "Asia"

    How do you know what exactly he said? Do you hear Trump's voice?

  • ||

    So we should accept immigrants based on the statistical averages of their nationality. Not on their individual characteristics.

    Isn't that the essence of racism? Judging people according to their group, not their individual character?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Isn't that the essence of racism? Judging people according to their group, not their individual character?

    No.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

  • Widhalm19||

    Why do you hate us Norwegians?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    No. Racism is judging people according to a very specific group that they belong to.

    What you're talking about is generalization, which is often not a good thing. However, there are laws that prohibit more individualized decisions on immigration. We can't do IQ tests for example. So we have to work with the categories we're allowed to work with.

  • ||

    Racism is judging people according to a very specific group that they belong to.

    That's pretty much restating the exact same thing I just said.

    You want to talk about merit based immigration fine. That is not equivalent to saying "We don't need more people from those shithole countries - Africa, Haiti, El Salvador".

    What Trump is doing is judging *everyone* in Africa, Haiti, and El Salvador according to their group. He's not advocating IQ tests. He's advocating more immigrants from Norway *in general* and fewer immigrants from those other non-white countries *in general*.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hazel, we have tens of millions of illegal brown people here right now, in addition to all the ones we let in legally. Are you so racist that you're against letting a few more Norwegians immigrate here instead? Especially if they're not indigents and have education and useful skills?

  • StackOfCoins||

    We can't do IQ tests for example.

    One wonders why.

  • vek||

    Because, assuming any reasonable bar were set, that would mean whites and Asians would make up the vast majority of the immigrants? Global IQ scores tell a tale, and it explains most of why some places suck balls, and other places are baller.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Judging people by their group membership is collectivism, and racism is just one type of collectivism. I believe that is what Hazel meant. And she is correct, because of the transitive property of sets.

  • ||

    Yes, technically prejudice on the basis of national origin might not be "racism" (American isn't a race), but it's bigotry none the less. Prejudice against people because of their nationality isn't any better or worse than racism.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    technically prejudice on the basis of national origin might not be "racism" (American isn't a race), but it's bigotry none the less.

    So you're admitting you were wrong. Thanks.

    Bigotry is a subjective concept. It's just generalization that the user of the word doesn't like.

  • Paloma||

    Except African isn't a national origin. It's a continent with lots and lots of countries and ethniciticies
    Hutus and Tutsis, for example. But they're all just the N word to Trump and his low life followers..

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh, Fuck off you racist progtard.

  • Mark22||

    Prejudice against people because of their nationality isn't any better or worse than racism.

    Well, obviously that's the kind of reprehensible belief system you subscribe to. As I was saying, you act like the typical traditional racist: you divide people up by race, play them against each other, and then try to justify illiberal or leftist or globalist policies based on them.

    As for immigration, the US is under no obligation to treat all immigrants equally or fairly. There are excellent economic, political, and social reasons to discriminate based on national origin. This is in accordance with international law, basic human rights, and is practiced by every nation on the planet. Deal with it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Hazel's a girl? An actual girl in the HnR comment section?

    What's next? Volcanoes? Earthquakes? The dead reaching for the snooze button and thinking better of it for a change? The dog and cat versions of Tinder having a merger and deciding to start sharing their accounts?

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Actual girl"? That sounds transphobic.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Whatever kind of girl she is, it is unprecedented nonetheless.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Judging people by their group membership is collectivism

    No it's not. From the wiki: "Collectivism is a cultural value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over self."

    What you're talking about is generalization, which every functioning human does even if they verbally claim not to. You would not be able to function in society if you couldn't make decisions without evaluating every person on an individual basis. Racism is a type of generalization, but most generalization is not racism.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am not gonna play semantic games with you. I am using the term in the sense it has been used by libertarians for years, because, you know, this is a libertarian site.

    "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions." - Ron Paul

  • poptart||

    "I am not gonna play semantic games with you"

    You mean "any further semantic games" because you sure as fuck were trying to play semantic games in that earlier post.

    " I am using the term in the sense it has been used by libertarians for years, because, you know"

    You were proven wrong, and now need to backpedal. So, you claim it's a libertarian definition (I'm a libertarian and I've never used it) but, it's really just another stupid fucking appeal to the audience.

    It's YOUR definition. Stop trying to manufacture legitimacy for your stupid fucking assertions, after they've been shown to be wrong

    " well I know that the dictionary doesn't say that that is the definition but IT'S IN THE LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY"

    No asshole, you were just wrong.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Okay, fine. He used "collectivism" when he should have said "generalization". I'm glad you were able to use this grammatical dispute to release some of your pent-up anger, at least- clearly, it was needed.

    Irregardless, how does calling it the latter make the concept of inflicting state violence on people based on their national origin, culture, or indeed any criteria other than their having initiated physical violence any more acceptable to those of us who believe in individualism?

  • poptart||

    Ron Paul (R)

  • Mark22||

    Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike

    And that is relevant to immigration decisions... how?

    Objection to immigration from shithole countries isn't based on a belief "that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike", it is based on the belief that the cost/benefit towards allowing immigration from certain countries probably isn't worth it.

    I.e., there may well be a few really smart people in Mozambique, but it's not worth the American tax payer's time or expense to find them. What we know is that Norway has such a well-functioning welfare state and such a good education system that people who choose to immigrate from Norway are likely to be good contributors to the US even under open borders. That includes the several hundred thousand non-white Norwegians. It's not about race, it's about economics and incentives. You keep making it about race.

    That's also why the EU members have open borders with each other and a few countries like Switzerland and Norway, yet have strict restrictions on immigration from Africa and Muslim countries.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    What's the problem with selecting people based on the statistical averages of the group they come from? Why do you hate insurance companies, Hazel?

    Let me put it to you this way. You have X amount of dollars to spend on a sack of potatoes. Do you buy them from a store where 90% of the potatoes in the sack are likely to be good, or from a store where you know 70% of them are likely to be rotten? Are you going to buy the likely rotten ones and go running around telling everyone it was a great idea because 30% are good?

    If we have X amount of slots for immigrants, why should we be letting them in from countries where we already know a significant number are going to be a net debit to us? I guarantee you, if you compare the percent of criminal immigrants from Norway against the percentage from Haiti, Haiti is not gonna come out looking too good.

  • Paloma||

    Hell, who DOESN'T hate insurance companies?

  • kevrob||

    The mayor of Hartford, CT, is furiously trying to get Aetna, now owned by CVS, to stay put, instead of moving to New York City.

  • Mark22||

    So we should accept immigrants based on the statistical averages of their nationality. Not on their individual characteristics.

    No, it simply means that if we accept immigrants based on their individual characteristics, we'll get "more immigrants from Norway" and "fewer immigrants from Africa".

    Isn't that the essence of racism? Judging people according to their group, not their individual character?

    No, the essence of racism is to judge people according to their race; race is not a biologically valid concept, so that's wrong.

    What is evil is when government discriminates against citizens based on group membership like race. Progressives and leftists keep advocating that. You keep advocating that. It is reprehensible. It's racist.

    In other contexts, it is perfectly fine to discriminate. In particular, governments can and frequently do discriminate when it comes to immigration. Germany and Sweden preferential immigration treatment to Norwegians over Africans.

  • Flinch||

    Pay attention meatball22 [instead of regurgitating propaganda]. Trump said "their rapists", not 'they are' rapists (etc) as he referred to the type of people the Mexican government was aiding across the border by turning a blind eye. They are serious about their southern border, but that same set of rules somehow doesn't exist up north now does it?
    It took me all of 20 seconds to find Trumps speech on youtube, FYI.

  • Irwin Mann||

    If he said what is reported he was speaking of the place not the people.
    The obvious answer to 'why do they come' is 'because the place they were was a shithole'.
    Those who would leave may well be those we want. Do not, however, bring that shit with you.

    Trump has also skillfully taken control of the discussion and framed it in his terms which his detractors have dutifully adopted. We now can say 'shithole' in polite company. Everyone is dancing to Trumps tune and they imagine they have the high ground when they are simply high.

    Again Trump proves that he is a genius. Ain't it grand!

  • Tony||

    We don't want all those folks from those shithole countries coming here, but it's definitely not because they're brown, it's because they'll vote for progressive/socialist policies.

    But bring on the Norwegians!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, we have tens of millions of people from shithole countries here already. Subbing in a few Norwegians here and there isn't a big deal. Except to progtards.

  • Tony||

    I'm just tickled that you idiots are praising countries that progtards most want to emulate.

  • Mark22||

    I'm just tickled that you idiots are praising countries that progtards most want to emulate.

    Progressives say they want to "emulate Scandinavia", but they are lying. Scandinavian countries have much higher taxes on the middle class than the US. That's how they balance their budget and finance their social welfare state. Progressives want Scandinavian style benefits but want to finance that by taxing the rich and corporations, and that doesn't work.

    So, as a libertarian, I'm all for "emulating Scandinavia" because while it's not libertarian, it's closer than the nonsense Democrats and progressives are spewing in the US.

  • hello.||

    If you and Shikha Dalmia represent the best that Mexico and India have to offer, then I'd have to say that 3 generations of imbeciles are enough.

  • spec24||

    "He also said "Asia" which means he's an idiot who doesn't know geopraphy"

    Oh my god are you stupid.

  • Dr. Benjamin Dover||

    Your sense of reality is twisted. Is it caused by hate or ignorance is the question.

  • zonevazo||

    I just started 7 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. go to this site for more details..... www.startonlinejob.com

  • ||

    I guess - sigh - 'shithole' is the word of 2018.

  • SIV||

    It's a good one!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The year is young

  • gaoxiaen||

    I alway's thought that it meant Greeley's Billiards.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Caught that comma error right after I hit submit.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    They burned the table in '78 for firewood.

  • GILMORE™||

    This "Shithole-gate" is the dumbest bout of mass pearl-clutching the planet has yet seen.

    and its only the beginning.

    The president says one fucking uncouth word and everyone's like OMG I BETTER WRITE AN EDITORIAL - NO WAIT, A DOZEN EDITORIALS

    and its not even clear what he actually said. its all secondhand hearsay. and its the sort of thing any number of people could say - or worse - without anyone batting an eye. taking umbrage and preening has become the national social-media-pasttime.

  • Zeb||

    And I'd be pretty surprised if many or most politicians don't use vulgar and un-PC language about all sorts of things like this in private discussions (I like to imagine that Veep gets things largely right as far as that goes). Which, as far as I can tell, is what this was.

  • GILMORE™||

    Of course they do. Its just that the media would never report on anyone else's crude passing-remarks as tho it were somehow national news

    as someone else succinctly put it: everyone's screeching about the wrong shit

  • Deflator Mouse||

    This was a meeting with people hostile to Trump (Durbin, Graham, Flake). He should have known that something like this was going to be reported on the outside.

    Trump is clearly used to dealing only with people who need to suck up to him to keep their jobs. Hard to believe he can change his habits in his 70s.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not surprised that people are screeching about it. Just annoyed and frustrated that it's what gets the attention.

  • Paloma||

    Trump at the very least underestimates his enemies. He thinks that if he's unpopular he can always retire to his previous private life with all its perks. He's wrong. He's going to end up in jail.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    If Hillary is free, what does Trump have to fear?

  • hello.||

    and its not even clear what he actually said. its all secondhand hearsay.

    If you can't trust Dick Durbin then who can you trust?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The media are just lying scumbags. They should be beaten on sight in public.

  • Flinch||

    The fun part is...the president has uncorked a media trait they have desperately tried to keep under wraps for a long time: they are mostly a bunch of potty mouthed lowlifes today. Now that they can say they are quoting him, they can't say S-hole enough, and the phrase is going to die in 2018 from overexposure - maybe this month. Perhaps the next step is to descend into the fart joke region like the 5th grade imbeciles the media is [on balance]. I wonder what occasion Trump will choose to trigger them?

  • E. Kline||

    Not even second hand, third hand. The sources for this were not even in the meeting but rather were told what was said in the meeting.

  • SIV||

    Trump didn't call India a "shithole".

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Maybe not, but his comments were still inexcusable. There is a perception that all underdeveloped countries are shitholes, and this perception often promotes the white supremacist idea that white-majority countries are the best places to live because white people just know how to run things better. That's why all white people, but especially the President, should avoid being too judgmental about living conditions in other countries.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Let's keep the fantasy alive that places people run from are not shitholes.

    Get it thru your Thick skulls that white Europeans founded the USA and its the best country in the World.

    Americans, Immigrants, slaves and native Indians built The USA to what it is today. It is supposed to be a bastion of freedom, rule of law, free markets with a small and limited protective government with rights guaranteed by a constitution.

  • Cyto||

    And they came here because the places they were from were - for various reasons - shitholes.

    Nobody leaves their home to cross an ocean and start over from scratch because their home is so wonderful and safe and filled with opportunity. Well, nobody except for missionaries. They do that crap all the time. But the rest of us don't. If things are wonderful, we stay put.

    And you know what the people already here said? They said those immigrants were dirty and carried disease and were criminals and should be kept out. That's what they said about the Irish. And the Italians. And the Germans. And the Chinese. And more recently the Vietnamese, Laotians, Cubans, then the Mexicans, then the Salvadorans, and the Haitians....

    It goes with the territory. That's what people do.

    And Shika is right. And so is Trump... sort of and probably accidentally. Not about the where they come from part, but about getting the best and brightest. We should be siphoning off the most talented people from every country we can, just like we've been doing with India and now China for years.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yep. We need to do what's best for Americans. If that helps some folks out from the shitholes, then great. If it doesn't, oh well.

  • Flinch||

    Ah, that's it: it takes a government to take a good land, with good people and turn it into a S-hole. In that vein, the driving force for original european emigration [that built the US] is now on steroids, and the blizzard of regulations out of Brussels is enough to make a sane man choose serfdom [if those were the only choices]. There is a brilliant piece out there: Regulated Man from Brexit The Movie. It stuns me to think... over 12000 laws for milk? To wrap your head around that much means opening a dairy farm might take 5 years. I wonder how many kids you can starve with laws...

  • Ecoli||

    Why are immigrants clamoring to enter Europe and America? Why are immigrants not clamoring to enter Haiti, and India?

    Are white-majority countries the best places to live? If so, why?

    Your last sentence sounds kinda racist.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Are white-majority countries the best places to live? If so, why?

    Sometimes they are, but that's largely because white supremacy exploits other countries and indigenous people to create a high standard of living in the Western world. The poster right above you admitted that (emphasis added) "Americans, Immigrants, slaves and native Indians built The USA to what it is today."

    My last sentence was actually anti-racist. I'm cautioning against doing that lame trick that alt-right Twitter trolls use, where they contrast a picture of impressive European architecture against a third world shack and say "See?! This proves white countries are better because white people live in them!!!!11111"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Slaves and native Indians only built a part of the USA. Furthermore, there would most likely never have been a USA without said white Europeans forming it. There could have even been a USA without slaves. I would even say that if nobody lived in North America, the USA could have been formed.

    In other words, I am giving credit to those people that built America up but the key element was white Europeans forming the USA.

  • JuanQPublic||

    In other words, I am giving credit to those people that built America up but the key element was white Europeans forming the USA.

    White Europeans formed the institutions of the US and founding documents.

    As for building the infrastructure, slave labor had a huge part of that.

  • poptart||

    "slave labor had a huge part of that."

    That was probably true in 1817. In 2017, it's retarded.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    LovCon, just ignore that turd. His comments are just bad performance art.

  • Widhalm19||

    Have you ever traveled overseas to Third World countries? I mean other than with you backpack for a two week potfest on the Backpacker Trail. Your words ring with the empty wisdom of inexperience inflamed by the passion naive self-righteousness in-other-words a "progressive". Go live in Zimbabwe or Laos or El Salvador for a year and report back to us.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's a (shitty IMO) parody.

  • poptart||

    "but that's largely because white supremacy exploits other countries and indigenous people to create a high standard of living in the Western world. "

    And so said immigrants move there to be exploited.

    Makes sense

  • AS||

    Actually, India has millions of illegal immigrants, and they continue to come even though the border guards usually shoot them and dump their body over the fence if they catch them. Of course, India also has legal immigrants from Tibet.

  • SIV||

    East Indians are white !

  • Vernon Depner||

    They aspire to it, at least. Blackness is considered a skin disease in India.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And also to Uncle Ruckus, no relation.

    https://tinyurl.com/y73rosnn

  • AS||

    No way. In fact, whites were traditionally considered barbarians (mlecha) in India.

  • MarioLanza||

    "... this perception often promotes the white supremacist idea that white-majority countries are the best places to live because white people just know how to run things better."

    Obama called Libya a "$hi+ show". Could you show me your outrage comments at that remark?

    Of course pigmentation of skin has nothing to do with why the west is successful. But dedication to individual liberty - something which leftists like you hate - has everything to do with the success of the west.

  • ||

    Hmmm.... once might think this concept of "individual liberty" might be applied to the individuals from other countries who would like to immigrate to the US.

  • poptart||

    So you can't show an objection to Obama's statement.

  • Paloma||

    Trump and his supporters are not about individual liberty in any form at any time in any place.

  • poptart||

    So, they don't support the 2nd amendment?

    Oh...

  • poptart||

    So, they don't support the 2nd amendment?

    Oh...

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Good old Paloma and his dumbass comments.........

  • Tony||

    The most laissez-faire country = Somalia.
    Not the most laissez-faire country, to say the least = Norway.

  • Paloma||

    Warlords would disagree with you.

  • Cyto||

    So would the economic freedom index. I think Norway may have passed us by a while back. All those Scandinavians have backtracked on a lot of the socialist state in recent years.

  • Paloma||

    Argentina is pretty much white.

  • MikeP2||

    The comments are not inexcusible becayse of the simple reality that the perception is historically and statistally proven. White majority countries are better run and more successful. Its not race and to read racism into that just highlights your own personal racism of low expectations. White majority countries have been more successful because of the greater advancement in civil and lefal norms developed in western europe over centuries...theynjust happen to be white due to history. Countries that learned from that cultural advancemnet have less society problems, like corruption, that destroy progess. India, china have benefitted enormously from Brit influence. Thats not to say those culturals didnt have much of their own greatness. But the learnings helped enormously. Same with Korea and Japan learning the good aspects from the US post wars.
    It is racist to prseume that cultures are equal and each cant learn the best from each other.

  • E. Kline||

    Ok, then why do predominantly white countries seem do so much better?

  • Mark22||

    Trump didn't call India a "shithole".

    He should have. Indians on average are less educated than Angolans or Rwandans, their per capita GDP is below that of Congo or Guyana, and their literacy rate is below that of Eritrea and Uganda.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Guyana is a town-state in the Western hemisphere. These two aren't comparable. And India's GDPpc is many times that of the Congo, which is in a photo finish for lowest in the world.

    "Less educated" and "literacy rate" is made-up bullshit.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Guyana has roughly the same area as Great Britain, and I think he means Congo, not Democratic Congo, which are two different countries.

  • Paloma||

    Let's face it, he doesn't know what the hell he means. Like he or his followers know the difference or care.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Given you are such an ignorant piece of shit, your commentary is astoundingly hypocritical.

  • Mark22||

    Let's face it, you are an ignorant ideologue who is resistant to facts. Of course, that's typical of open border advocates, when they aren't outright liars.

    literacy rate, education (UNDP), per capita GDP

  • Mark22||

    The nice thing is that one can easily expose ignorant people like you these days:

    literacy rate

    education (UNDP)

    per capita GDP

    Yes, every fact I stated is correct. Go check yourself.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Jesus. This place is becoming a racist shithole.

  • hello.||

    OH MY GOD! ACTUAL FACTS AND STATISTICS! WHERE'S MY SAFE SPACE!

  • poptart||

    but enough about you.

  • E. Kline||

    Way to cherry pick.

  • Mark22||

    We were discussing India vs Mexico. It should be obvious that India is worse on all those measures than Mexico. The other countries I listed just illustrated how bad India actually is.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Do Immigrants Import Their Economic Destiny?

    How immigrants shape institutions

    We now have the key pieces of the puzzle:

    The Deep Roots literature which shows that in the long run, migration deeply shapes a nation's level of pro-market institutions, and that a nation's ancestry-adjusted SAT score (States, Agriculture, Technology) is a good predictor of prosperity.
    The Attitude Migration literature, which shows that migrants bring a substantial portion of their attitudes toward markets, trust, and social safety nets with them from their home country.
    The New Voters = New Policies literature, which shows that governments really do change when new voters show up, and that the changes start to show up in just a few years.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No welfare, huh?

    No student loans? No affirmative action?

    Anyways, thanks for coming to the USA and making it worse than you found it. You advocate open borders via your media work as if there are no consequences to Open borders. How many immigrants coming to the USA that keep that socialist torch lit will vote to destroy American Liberty- only time will tell.

    In my opinion, you give immigrants who cherish American ideals a bad name.

  • Mark22||

    In my opinion, you give immigrants who cherish American ideals a bad name.

    Shikha may be a lot smarter than the average Indian, but she obviously still has a strong streak of Indian statism and socialism in her veins, a product of her culture and society.

  • MikeP2||

    Indians are inredibly racist, as are most Asians. Its hilarious to hear and Indian accuse whites of racism, when the entire countries cast system is based on what shade of brown your skin color is. Classsic transference.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is precisely the kind of arguments we need for immigration from "shit-hole" countries.

    I might only add, Ms. Dalmia, that there is nothing wrong or bad for the economy about unskilled labor either. The economy needs gardeners and childcare workers and house cleaners, etc., too.

    Whatever my differences with Ms. Dalmia in the past, I give her a ton of credit for being the only Reason writer I see today who really made the case for why immigration is a benefit to American society.

    Thank goodness somebody finally came through.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She's also one of the people writIng for Reason that thinks the majority of Americans should not get a say regarding immigration because she has TDS.

    Trump was elected by a majority of electors based on the states that voted for him. Trump's campaign agenda to control illegal immigration, lower regular immigration, and put America above all other countries is more popular than what used to constitute immigration policy.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Americans are tired of being out last in their own country and elected a candidate who feels the same.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Like I said, I disagree with her completely on a number of immigration related topics, but--just today--she's the only one I've seen make an actual libertarian argument for immigration.

    Today, the rest of them have mostly been peddling socialism and Marxism under a libertarian masthead.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She did lay out some reasons for some immigrants from India which is a big step for her typical open border manifestos.

    She also glosses over some reasons not to allow in Indian immigrants. [I am not well versed in current India-America immigration rules] However, India still has a caste system that is designed to keep certain people from moving up in life as in the USA. India has diseases that the USA rarely sees like the bubonic plague, cholera, polio.

    She also glosses over the left behind millions of Indians. Shikha seems like a middle class Indian woman who shouts the achievements of India but ignores the millions of illiterate Indians.

    One of the biggest reason that we don't need many more Indians coming to America is why do we need more people who don't really want to fight for India to be great. Then they come to the USA and undermine the Americans that want to discuss immigration policy and currently tighten immigration. Good thing the USA has the 1st Amendment. India doesn't protect a freedom of the press.

  • Paloma||

    India has a population of 1.3 billion. Norway a paltry 5 million. India's population is roughly 30 times that of Norway. Of COURSE there are more talented and intelligent people in India than in Norway. WAY more.

  • E. Kline||

    Math is hard I guess, try again.
    I'll do it for you. Not 30, ... 300.

  • Agammamon||

    Why is it that when a majority of Americans have *had* their say - you reject it because they didn't say what you wanted to here?

    You'd do just fine in the EU government - did they vote 'wrong'? Then just have another vote until we get the result we want.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump's president from a majority of electors from the states that voted for him. Popular votes doesn't count for that.

    Popular vote in states do count as there is a majority of Republicans in the Senate and House who are also not challenging Trump's enforcement of current immigration law.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Agammamnon,

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, but naturalization is an enumerated power of congress, and whatever measure of popularity people want to use these days, policy isn't determined by the same methods that told us Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of beating Donald Trump.

    We elect representatives, and they vote. The president signs the bill that sets the rules of naturalization. The question of whether people from "shit-hole" countries to become Americans doesn't even get lost in the absurd objections about whether the process of naturalization includes the authority to regulate immigration.

    What our naturalization policy should be is a function of democracy--as well it should be--and our immigration policy is subject to what the American people want going forward through their representatives.

    . . . not by any other standard of popularity.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    This is precisely the kind of arguments we need for immigration from "shit-hole" countries.

    What's the argument? A few million carefully screened Indians do well so imagine how fucking awesome a billion Africans would be?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Any argument that suggests immigration might be benefit to American society is a big improvement over what we've been getting.

    The other arguments are about how pitiful immigrants are--as if immigration policy should be made for their benefit--or, in one of the other articles, immigration from Haiti seems to be put forward as a punishment we have to accept because of our own bad foreign policy.

    At this point, I'm impressed that anybody is actually answering Trump's rhetorical question--but that's exactly what pro-immigration people should be doing. Making the case for why immigrants are good for American rather than talking about them as an affliction who need to be tolerated because they're so pathetic.

    Finding the bunny with the cutest, floppiest ears and the biggest, saddest eyes is no way to make immigration policy--or any other policy . . . unless you're a progressive. Then the whole world is about figuring out who the most pathetic victim is and decrying anyone who complains about forced sacrifice on their behalf.

    I'm not a progressive.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I agree with all this, but it's not responsive to my question. What's the argument? Let's go by this sentence by sentence.

    Indian Americans are living proof that hailing from "shithole" countries is no barrier to success in America (and, conversely, hailing from lovelier places is no guarantee of avoiding failure). Immigrants who choose to come to America don't in any meaningful way resemble the stereotypes of their native lands. Indeed, countries become "shitholes" because they are led by assholes. But these presiding assholes are no measure of the "quality" of the people they are governing.

    And that too is good news for America.

    1) "The correlation is not 1 and -1 like you insist." This is rhetoric for morons.
    2) This is obviously empirically false.
    3) There's too many problems too list. The biggest is that countries *become* shitholes.
    4) Haiti is just on a couple century long bad run with the democratically elected government thing.

    These are vacuous assertions, not arguments.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hope you appreciate that I don't necessarily have to agree with every aspect of her argument to note that the thrust of this argument is fundamentally different from what we were getting from others earlier.

    She is defending the quality of immigrants from "shit-hole" countries.

    Others were attacking Trump for saying such a thing, saying that the immigrants from these places are so pathetic that we should take them out of pity for them, or arguing that we should have to take these useless people to atone for our foreign policy sins. In other words, the other arguments were effectively conceding to the argument that immigrants from "shit-hole" countries are worthless or worse.

    Shikha Dalmia, on the other hand, is arguing that these people are valuable agents of economic growth and we should value them as contributors to our society. She may be wrong about this or that aspect of her argument, but the general thrust of her argument is precisely how pro-immigration people need to approach this topic.

    The American people should demand a more open and legal immigration policy from their representatives because such an immigration policy is in the best interests of *drum roll* the American people.

    She gets that right, and today (and yesterday) that argument is unusual around here.

    It shouldn't be, not on a libertarian website. Score one for Dalmia--even if she's wrong some way in the specifics.

  • AS||

    I think she was arguing that you can get good quality immigrants from poor quality countries. That does not necessarily support a more open immigration system. It may support a more merit-based system. Trump basically supports a merit-based system, though he does not always articulate it in a polished manner.

  • I can't even||

    This.

    Americans think Indians and Chinese are brilliant and hard-working because we skim the top 0.01% from countries with populations over a billion. (with a few exceptions like Shikha)

    Go there and you realize the ones who stayed aren't all that bright or motivated.

  • MikeP2||

    That last comment. Dear god, yes. The worst classism of coastal liberals is how they ridicule rural americans and declare how unwordly those hicks are relative to other countries. But ironically their perception of the rest of the world is limited to tourist locations and extremely limited perspective of the average citizen. Go to rural anywhere in the world and you'll realize that those appalacian miners or southern farmers are far far more educated, literate, and worldy then the vast majority of the world.

  • E. Kline||

    bingo... apples and dogshit.

  • SIV||

    I give Shikha a ton of credit for being smart, having excellent troll-skills and lookin' hot .

  • MarioLanza||

    Indian immigrants have been wonderfully successful. El Salvadorans...not so much (if you disregard the "success" of the MS-13). So how about we be a little selective???

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's one of the problems with Dalmia's take.

    Working women (especially single moms) need cheap, good quality childcare and housecleaning, and if people from El Salvador have been providing those services at an affordable cost, then they've been making a significant contribution to society--they've been quite successful.

    Success should be defined by flourishing economically through contributing to society, and while I'm sure there are civil engineers, doctors, and computer scientists who originally came here from central America as immigrants, it isn't even necessary for native born Americans to join some prestigious profession in order to be a success.

    Start your own landscaping company, and you can be quite successful--that's the American dream.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    if people from El Salvador have been providing those services at an affordable cost, then they've been making a significant contribution to society--they've been quite successful.

    On the contrary, whoever provided "childcare" and "education" for this current generation of snowflakes has destroyed our country and should be deported.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I wouldn't blame the El Salvadorans for that.

  • Zeb||

    I think that's on schools (public and private) a lot more than on nannies and housekeepers.

  • Juice||

    I live in the midst of a shitload of Salvadorans. I see them busting their asses and starting businesses all over the place. I also live near a bunch of Jamaicans and West Africans. Many of them are trashy pieces of shit, but many are not. The ones that are though tend to leave liquor bottles and Red Stripe bottles everywhere and can be just plain assholes most of the time. There are also a ton of Ethiopians who are much better than the West Africans. Most of them are well educated and work in high paying professions. Anyway, I don't know why you are disparaging Salvadorans in particular.

  • Mark22||

    I might only add, Ms. Dalmia, that there is nothing wrong or bad for the economy about unskilled labor either. The economy needs gardeners and childcare workers and house cleaners, etc., too.

    There is plenty wrong with it, however, for government budgets: unskilled labor pays far less in taxes than they consume in services. To the degree that such laborers are "good for the economy", the economic beneficiaries of that unskilled labor (agribusinesses etc.) are receiving massive subsidies from tax payers and government debt.

    I give her a ton of credit for being the only Reason writer I see today who really made the case for why immigration is a benefit to American society.

    Indians do well in the US precisely because we are selective about the Indians that come to the US. The average Indian is even less educated and less intelligent than the average South American; if we had immigration from India like we do from South America, Indian Americans would be the poorest ethnic group in the US.

    What Shikha really illustrated is the need for being selective about immigration.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you want to argue about cutting social services, you'll need to get in line behind me.

    I'm getting famous around here (and elsewhere) for excoriating even Rand Paul for voting against cutting $1,022 trillion in entitlement spending.

    That such a vote was taken shows that those two issues are not inextricably linked. We can cut socialist services spending whenever we want.

    In fact, I have a fundamental libertarian problem with linking immigration and entitlements because doing so lends itself to the suggestion that American citizenship entitles you to free healthcare, social security, rent subsidies, food stamps, etc. when the fact is that being an American citizen doesn't entitle you to any such thing.

    There is a system of government in which being a citizen entitles you to those things. It's called "communism". I am not a communist, and I don't care whether the welfare queens are native born or immigrants--we should cut those services as close to zero for everybody regardless of false distinctions about citizenship.

  • ||

    So you finally got tired of making common cause with the Stormfront crowd, have you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Up yours, you lying idiot!

  • Aloysious||

    That bhangra dance was beautiful.

  • Ecoli||

    India is not Haiti.

    Congratulations, Shika. You done good. Most Indians do. Most east Asians do.

    Why do Haitians not do as well as Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    India had massive English influence just like the 13 colonies until both nations declared independence from the crown is one similarity.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    ...

  • MarioLanza||

    I would bet that she came to the states legally.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Haitians tend to do very well in the USA, as it happens. Recent immigrants from the poorest countries tend to work like Americans won't.

    -jcr

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

  • Deflator Mouse||

    That would explain how they can just pick up and move to Canada on a dime when Justin Cuckdeau offered them refugee status. A lot easier to get new welfare benefits than to get a new job.

  • hello.||

    Recent immigrants from the poorest countries tend to work like Americans won't.

    This appears true to fat, lazy fucks like you who have never changed a shitty diaper or cleaned a toilet in their lives and only see a hispanic when you're slipping him a 20 in the Home Depot parking lot. As it turns out, most immigrant households are receiving welfare, and people who don't live in Manhattan who change their own oil and come home from work with dirt under their fingernails don't need Mexican peasants to support their lifestyle like you do.

  • MikeP2||

    Yup. Randolphs comment stems from his own inherent classism and racism of low expectations. He sees a Haitian working hard and since he expects so little, he notes it as impressive. And since his inherent racism leads to higher expectations for whites, he sees a lower income white as shifty and lazy when doing the exact same work as the Haitian.

  • Wanderer||

    This

    Not to mention that americans are usually OK with doing hard and unpleasant work. They just expect a good salary for it, while 1%ers like John C.Randolph want to fuck their bargaining power.

  • Mark22||

    Congratulations, Shika. You done good. Most Indians do. Most east Asians do.

    The average Indian would fare far worse in the US than the average Mexican: Indians are poorer, less educated, less iterate, and less intelligent than Mexicans on average.

    The reason why Indians do better than Mexicans in the US is the result of how immigrant populations from the two countries are selected: we mostly get educated elites from India, while we get low skill agricultural workers from Mexico.

  • Ecoli||

    You are correct. Maybe I should clarify. Most Indian immigrants do well because of the difficulties they face in getting here. The US does not allow the average Indian to immigrate here, and that is a good thing.

    Indian immigrants are "selected" because they have to cross an ocean to get here. Mexicans don't have that Geo-barrier. I like Mexicans. I live among them. They are mostly good people, with admirable social values. Mexico is a colorful, interesting place. I do not want America to become Mexico. Most Americans do not want America to become Mexico. Even most Mexican-Americans do not want America to become Mexico.

    This whole tantrum is ridiculous. Trump used a common, vulgar term to accurately describe several failed countries. Haiti is a shithole, and so is much of Africa. They are shitholes because their inhabitants (mostly) allow them to be shitholes. I don't want America to be a shithole. Limiting immigration from shithole countries is good policy.

    Dalmia's mistake is in thinking that because she is a smart, driven person, (i.e. "good") that everybody else is.

  • Eric Bana||

    Most Americans do not want America to become Mexico. Even most Mexican-Americans do not want America to become Mexico.

    This is such a bizarre argument. The U.S. didn't become Ireland or Poland.

    For the children of immigrants born in the U.S. (the second generation), English is the dominant language. By the third generation, descendants usually lose the language that their grandparents spoke. This indicates the opposite of "America becoming X country."

  • poptart||

    "This is such a bizarre argument. The U.S. didn't become Ireland or Poland."

    Because they had to go out, find jobs and be successful in their communities Instead of living off of benefits and refusing to assimilate.

    It's only bizarre because you're stupid.

  • Mark22||

    This is such a bizarre argument. The U.S. didn't become Ireland or Poland.

    The Irish and Polish immigrated before the social welfare state, so the only way they could survive was by copying the free market model and protestant culture.

    In the case of the Irish, this was a conscious process by community and religious leaders, with Catholic priests adopting a much more protestant message of self restraint and hard work in the late 19th century.

  • E. Kline||

    Too much melanin?
    I keed, I keed.

  • JeremyR||

    India is basically part of the Anglosphere. Its people more or less speak English and England cured them of their worse barbaric practices.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Also, we are getting India's best and Shikha.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Dalmia is an argument for banning people from India forever.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shikha clearly thought posting a late night article would avoid the reasonites who point out correctly that Indians shit in the streets. I am glad y'all decided to counter her nonsense.

  • creech||

    Yet there are Americans shitting in the streets in Portland, and they don't call it Filthadelphia for nothing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I know just today I stepped in a huge pile of human excrement in my state of Georgia. I almost got the Bubonic plague the other day too. Georgia is such a shithole, so I don't know why people from as far as Commifornia keep moving here.

  • E. Kline||

    She actually mentioned it herself.

  • Miss C||

    Some cultures value education. Indians have a Goddess of education. Haitians have lots of deities, but not any of, "Education ". When Haitians start slitting chickens' throats to celebrate their children's devotion to learning , well, then, we can talk.

  • Sevo||

    Sowell writes of "cultures" without trying to explain why one does this well, and the other does that. You want good beer or pianos anywhere in the world? Find the local company founded by a German. I don't know why either.
    I was in far western China last year (actually Uighur territory, now occupied by the Beijing government, as it has been on and off for a couple of millennia).
    My guide and I stopped for lunch at a local 'bistro' in Yecheng (it's where you turn left to get to Tibet). As soon as the word spread an American was there, we got visits by several local guys (early-mid '20s); they were telling me about the games they'd coded for their phones, asking how they could get passage to the US.
    Those guys had 'educated' themselves absent any government schools; they were proud of it, and wanted to get to the the US where they could make money from their efforts. MONEY, dammit! One asked, they all got a $1 US bill and one of my fave photos from that visit is them waving those billls in the air.
    Consider that they were raised in what is now a shit-hole by our standards (not far off, a woman was guiding a donkey pulling a cart with the kids walking along side), and also in a formerly 'communist' state where you had every opportunity to pass on productive effort.
    There are shit-hole countries, and shit-hole cultures, but predicting how an individual comes out of either is a fools game.

  • Mark22||

    There are shit-hole countries, and shit-hole cultures, but predicting how an individual comes out of either is a fools game.

    But predicting how a large number of immigrants from a country will do on average based on the demographics of that country is not a fools game.

    Indiscriminate immigration from Colombia, India, or China is bad for the US.

    Selecting the most educated and most economically successful applicants for immigration from any of those places, on the other hand, is good for the US.

  • Eric Bana||

    The people that Sevo talked about aren't "educated" or economically successful even though there would likely be great benefits of they could immigrate to the U.S. legally.

    And besides, low-skilled labor is also valuable. If my sister could find a cheap Mexican nanny, then she could work full-time as a physical therapist. She can't find a cheap Mexican nanny, so she can't work full-time and spends most of her time wiping a baby's ass and vacuuming carpet. It'd be great if more Mexican ladies from shithole Mexican towns could come here and work for my sister so that my sister could contribute her highly developed skills rather than doing menial labor.

  • Eric Bana||

    The people that Sevo talked about aren't "educated" or economically successful even though there would likely be great benefits of they could immigrate to the U.S. legally.

    And besides, low-skilled labor is also valuable. If my sister could find a cheap Mexican nanny, then she could work full-time as a physical therapist. She can't find a cheap Mexican nanny, so she can't work full-time and spends most of her time wiping a baby's ass and vacuuming carpet. It'd be great if more Mexican ladies from shithole Mexican towns could come here and work for my sister so that my sister could contribute her highly developed skills rather than doing menial labor.

  • MikeP2||

    The US has far more lowskilled labor then the economy can sustain. You dont need a mexican nanny. There are hundreds of potental nannies in the town where your sister lives. But unfortunately, welfare and government handouts skew the perceived value of a nanny's salary. And the illegal mexican nanny, who cant easily get those handouts values the salary more. She skews the pay downward below what a legal american would value, creating a self destructuve cycle for all involves.
    But economics is hard, and your a racist....so not sure you can understand that relationship.
    .

  • Mark22||

    The people that Sevo talked about aren't "educated" or economically successful even though there would likely be great benefits of they could immigrate to the U.S. legally

    No, they wouldn't.

    If my sister could find a cheap Mexican nanny, then she could work full-time as a physical therapist.

    That Mexican nanny is only cheap because the tax payer subsidizes her, or because she is an indentured servant if she is illegal. She is also cheap because the people who hire her obviously don't give a shit about their children or their future, otherwise they wouldn't leave them in the care of a semi-literate, low-skilled immigrant.

    There are plenty of skilled, educated Americans that would be happy to watch your kids, provided you pay them adequately. But good child care is a far more skilled job than physical therapy, which is why the rational and economically efficient thing is likely for your sister to stay at home.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    the people who hire her obviously don't give a shit about their children or their future, otherwise they wouldn't leave them in the care of a semi-literate, low-skilled immigrant
    There are plenty of skilled, educated Americans that would be happy to watch your kids, provided you pay them adequately
    good child care is a far more skilled job than physical therapy, which is why the rational and economically efficient thing is likely for your sister to stay at home.

    Quite done informing the mothers of America how they ought and ought not to hire their nannies?

    Or perhaps you would like to try to maintain at least some superficial semblance of respect for consumer preference?

  • Mark22||

    Some cultures value education. Indians have a Goddess of education.

    India isn't a single culture, it's a continent with a billion people. The average Indian isn't very smart or educated. The kind of Indian who packs up, gets a US visa, can pay for a flight, and come to the US represents a member of India's intellectual elite. That's why they are doing well.

  • SQRLSY One||

    They are also doing well in the USA because they are (often, not always) entitled snobs from the upper castes. People around them (of lower social economic status than them) are treated like cows. I had an ethnic-Indian boss once who expected me to run personal errands for him. Once they get to be bosses, they cannot even contemplate the idea of getting their hands half-dirty. And they drive like assholes, because all the rest of us? Well, we are their cows, who should not step onto their shadows... This is the "sample" of Indian-American upper-caste obnoxious behavior that I have seen, at least...

    Part of the reason that India is a shit-hole is that they are money-and-status-greedy assholes, who give not a single hoot for anyone but themselves and their friends and families, is what I suspect...

  • Juice||

    I had an Indian roommate for a while. He was West Bengali and Brahmin. He would always remind us that he was Brahmin, but then follow it up by saying that he didn't care about all that. OK, then stop bringing it up. He was also a total slob. He said he was used to having other people cook and clean for him because you could pay someone the equivalent of $5-10/mo to be your maid or whatever. One of the perks of being upper caste, I guess.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Did He talk you into flushing the toilet for Him after He pooped? And did His Brahmin poop stink, or not?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Indians have a Goddess of education.

    They also have a goddess of rats, complete with a Rat Temple.

  • IceTrey||

    So why is India a shithole? Are the lessons the immigrants learned not being shipped back home?

  • Agammamon||

    No, Its because the people who stick around are the ones that are doing well under the status-quo. Those people do not want to implement the hard-learned lessons of the West because it will rock the boat and has a decent chance of toppling them from their current position as 'big fish in a little pond'. You'd be amazed how many people are genuinely willing to live in a little pond if they get to be the big fish in that pond rather than living in a bigger pond where they might not be the biggest.

    People be crazy.

  • Sevo||

    "People be crazy."
    That's not crazy, that's comfortable with what they have.
    Ambition is not universally distributed; I was called nuts for starting a new business 'later in life'.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    why is India a shithole?

    Its because the people who stick around are the ones that are doing well under the status-quo

    I need a flow chart or Venn diagram or something.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    In my experience with people living in India, they do tend to be smug, small-minded, and satisfied with themselves. Of course the sample may be a bit biased by consisting entirely of call center employees.

  • Mark22||

    So why is India a shithole? Are the lessons the immigrants learned not being shipped back home?

    Indian immigrants to the US come from India's intellectual elite and are simply not representative of the population.

    The population of India has a literacy rate of 72%, an average IQ of 82, and its level of education ranks behind Ghana, Angola and Rwanda.

    Brain drain to the US makes the problem worse, not better.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If you believe that IQ number for India, it's impossible to believe the level of functional education is below those other countries.

  • JFree||

    an average IQ of 82

    Please explain further. Do you have a newsletter?

  • Mark22||

    Please explain further.

    It's easy: you administer IQ tests to representative populations in different countries and compare the results.

    Do you have a newsletter?

    Yes! Google Scholar!

  • E. Kline||

    Culling process. Those that can pull themselves together enough to have a plan, buy a plane ticket, and leave, do.

  • XM||

    Most of us are fair minded enough to know that calling crappy countries shitholes and using terms like "chain migration" isn't necessarily dog whistle of racism. Having said, it's getting increasingly difficult to defend the guy for flying off the handle or just blurting out whatever's on his mind at the moment.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    using terms like "chain migration" isn't necessarily dog whistle of racism

    How on earth is this remotely under any circumstance a dog whistle for racism? It was a neutral term used by all parties until 8 or 9 minutes ago.

  • Mark22||

    Having said, it's getting increasingly difficult to defend the guy for flying off the handle or just blurting out whatever's on his mind at the moment.

    Did Trump say "shithole" on live TV somewhere? No.

    The whole controversy is based on hearsay about a private conversation. How the hell is that "flying off the handle" or "blurting out"?

  • RT||

    ^THIS. I don't have any doubt he said it (or something like it), but it was in a private meeting. He shouldn't have said whatever he said that got people in such an uproar that they had to run to the press with it.

    My question is this: In the long run, what does leaking this serve? I hear a lot of wringing of hands worrying about the diplomatic damage this has caused. The thing is, though, he didn't say it in a speech or press conference (not that I would have put it past him, to be honest). So the leakers, who seem to care more about short-term political gain than our country's relations with other countries, rushed to tell the press. So now the State Department has a mess to clean up.

    Trump can't be impeached for these types of statements, so he's the president for the next three years. It might be better to just roll your eyes and move on.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The Dems want to back out of the DACA deal now that the courts are going to block Trump's rescinding of DACA. This gives them an excuse to do so.

  • Tony||

    who seem to care more about short-term political gain

    Lots of people remember how Obama was stymied and harassed over every gesture he made or word he said. How the same happened to Trump's opponent in the election to an absurd degree.

    Maybe, in some deep dark corner of the cosmic library of moral truth, it's, on balance, unfair to go after Trump for a racist comment made in private.

    But on the other hand, fuck him. Live by politics die by politics, snowflake.

    So now the State Department has a mess to clean up.

    Dick Durbin isn't the head of state, the guy who made the insulting racist comments in front of Dick Durbin is. Not exactly the "the buck stops here" kind of administration, is it?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    You don't use that word in professional settings, whether they're on live TV or not. He wasn't even using it in a meeting of his advisors or something, he used it in a meeting with fairly hostile people from the other side of the aisle. If he said it, it was a huge mistake. And given his demonstrated lack of filter in the past, and willingness to lie about what he said, it's very believable that he said it.

    He's a guy in his 70s who's gotten away with this kind of thing his whole life because he was always the undisputed top dog. He's not going to change. This is what you voted for if you voted for him.

  • E. Kline||

    Well, technically, he still is the 'undisputed top dog' ( he's the fucking president for chrissakes), and he will get away with this regardless of the media's handwringing. So, I'm not really sure what your point is. I for one appreciate his candor, it makes me laugh.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Don't know if anyone mentioned this in the previous thread, but at least one external entity can certainly be partially blamed for Haiti's current plight. Something tells me this wasn't conducive to economic vitality:

    a subsequent and massive Haiti cholera outbreak was triggered when cholera-infected waste from a United Nations peacekeeping station contaminated the country's main river, the Artibonite. In 2017 it was reported that roughly 10,000 Haitians had died and nearly a million had been sickened. After years of denial the United Nations apologized in 2016, but as of 2017 they have refused to acknowledge fault, thus avoiding financial responsibility.

    If we as libertarians can't at least come together in unison to hate on the UN, I despair of our movement.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    (meant to post this in Ecoli's thread)

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Haiti doesn't have a sewage system. Slightly above average rain causes mass sickness.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Can't we all just hate on the UN together for like, two minutes?

  • Ecoli||

    I share your disdain for the UN.

    The UN is populated by Dalmia types. They go to Haiti and sun-bathe around the pool in their carefully guarded enclaves, drinking martinis, after a hard day of walking amongst the squalor for a few hours. That is how they become so much better than the average deplorable American in fly-over country.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If even half of what she said in her supervillain origin story intro to this article is true, Dalmia seems significantly harder-working and more accomplished than the average UN Hotel Inspection Specialist.

  • MJBinAL||

    Based on the past, much of what Shitma writes is less that accurate. (my best effort at tact) She might not be so hard working and accomplished as she portrays.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Comparative =/= Superlative, Mr. inAL, especially when UN personnel are the ones on the other side of the scales.

  • Mark22||

    All of this—not to mention the Patel motel "cartel"—has made them the richest ethnicity (not just minority) in America.

    What has made Indians so successful in the US is that immigration from India to the US attracts people from India's intellectual elite. That is, the people who come from India to the US are a highly biased sample of Indians. If Indian immigrants to the US were actually representative of India's population, Indians would be below blacks and Hispanics in terms of income and success in the US.

    Indian Americans are living proof that hailing from "shithole" countries is no barrier to success in America

    And where did Trump say it was? People like you (and me, I'm an immigrant myself) are not representative of the populations of the countries we came from.

    Indeed, countries become "shitholes" because they are led by assholes. But these presiding assholes are no measure of the "quality" of the people they are governing.

    Oh, but they are. India has the kind of government you expect from a country with low education, low average intellect, and high illiteracy. Europeans or Americans just wouldn't put up with the kind of government or laws India has.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If Indian immigrants to the US were actually representative of India's population, Indians would be below blacks

    Based on what?

  • Mark22||

    Based on the average IQ of those populations. Or based on the per capita GDP of those populations in their countries of origin if you prefer, which closely correlates.

    IQ differences are strongly heritable and reinforced through assortative mating and in-group preferences, so they persist. Indian Americans do well generation after generation because the initial population of Indian Americans was a high IQ population (on average). If they had been a low IQ population, then Indian Americans would be doing poorly generation after generation (on average).

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You credited India with an average IQ of 82 upthread. That's higher than anywhere in SSA and only 3 points lower than American blacks, who have access to one of world's best education systems and basically zero environmental insults.

  • Mark22||

    You credited India with an average IQ of 82 upthread. That's higher than anywhere in SSA and only 3 points lower than American blacks, who have access to one of world's best education systems and basically zero environmental insults.

    I believe what you are trying to suggest is that low average IQ in India is due to malnutrition and poor education. Those have some effect, but not 20 points on average.

    Sounds like you agree with the premise, and we're now just discussing whether the average Indian would end up slightly worse or slightly better than the average African American. What is clear is that they would not be doing as well as Shikha.

  • ||

    Can we maybe all stop judging people by the average IQ of people who happen to look similar to them?

  • Number 2||

    Certainly. As soon as Dalmia stops bragging about the average annual income of people who happen to look similar. The comments about average IQ and educational attainment were in response to her.

    The relative success of Ms. Dalmia and her fellow Indian Americans, who immigrated here legally under a very restricted and selective immigration program, is utterly immaterial to the question whether unrestricted immigration from all countries is or is not a good idea, and also utterly immaterial to the question of how one best deals with immigrants who came here illegally. Indeed, if someone opposed unlimited immigration, he or she could cite the example of Indian Americans as an argument against unrestricted immigration. I wonder if Ms. Dalmia considered that.

  • ||

    It is entirely material to the question of whether we should favor or disfavor immigration from *particular countries* based on whatever those countries are "shitholes".

  • Mark22||

    Progressive reasoning in three steps:

    1. Shikha makes an irrational, illogical, race-based argument for open borders ("I'm an Indian. I did well. All Indians can do well.")

    2. People make a rational and objective response ("You are not the average Indian. The average Indian would not do well because...")

    3. People like you come out of the woodwork and throw around spurious accusations of racism and bigotry.

    Other than self-aggrandizement, what do you actually hope to accomplish?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    "The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us; but he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. His attack is psychological, Damien. And powerful."

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't think there's any 'self-aggrandizement' being accomplished at all.

  • ||

    Your argument is internally inconsistent. If some indians had high IQs in the past, it stands to reason that some Indians may have high IQs in the present, and therefore, we should not judge Indians, as individuals, by the average IQ of Indians today. In other words, you don't ban or disvfavor immigration from entire nations based on the "shitholeness" of the nation on average. Which is Trump's position.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Except source nation is one of the few categories the law allows restricting immigration on the basis of. You can't perform individual IQ tests, for instance.

  • MJBinAL||

    Excellent!

    Since you seen to be focused on high IQs, let's revise our immigration process to include an IQ screening. How is that?

    The fact is that you want the borders to be wide open. There is NO criteria that is acceptable for screening applicants so far as you are concerned.

    No screening by country
    No screening by religion
    No screening by education
    No screening by security evaluation
    No screening by IQ

  • Mark22||

    In other words, you don't ban or disvfavor immigration from entire nations based on the "shitholeness" of the nation on average.

    Of course you do. We have a limited number of slots for immigrants every year. We have a limited budget to identify and screen good immigrants. We therefore should concentrate our search on those nations where screening is easy and where the prior probability of getting good immigrants is high.

    The US has no obligation to treat people equally when it comes to immigration. Furthermore, if anything, the responsible thing to do is not to hoover up the few smart people shithole countries have left, which is another reason why we should strongly disfavor immigration of such people.

    That's basically how immigration in the EU works: the EU strongly favors immigration from within the EU and a few developed nations, and EU nations generally make it a point of giving temporary visas only to smart people from Africa and places like Pakistan and force those people to return to their country of origin to improve the conditions there.

  • JFree||

    IQ differences are strongly heritable and reinforced through assortative mating and in-group preferences

    Please explain further. Do you have a newsletter?

  • Mark22||

    Do you have a newsletter?

    Heritability of IQ

    Assortative Mating and IQ

    Do you have a newsletter?

    No, just an education. You should try and get one yourself.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Indeed, countries become "shitholes" because they are led by assholes.

    The US has been "led" by assholes for decades now. Indeed the same is true of most First World countries.

    The US avoids becoming a "shithole" because of tradition, institutions, a tolerant culture, and the hard work of its people.

  • Tony||

    Are these the same traditions and culture that make Norway so great?

  • poptart||

    Hey look, Tony is admitting he's too stupid to discern between Norway and Nowegians.

  • Tony||

    You're right. We wouldn't want to stereotype. Not in this place.

  • poptart||

    What does that have to do with your inability to discern between Norway and Norwegians?

  • Tony||

    That the US gets the best and brightest immigrants, thanks largely to the same geographical luck that has made armed invasion difficult for its entire history, is the crux of the stupidity of Trump's remark. It's the reason immigration is a principal cause of American's supposed greatness.

    Not being willing to take a few refugees (who aren't going to meaningfully pollute the precious gene pool) is just being a bigoted asshole.

  • Deflator Mouse||

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The best thing for Indians, and for denizens of every other country, is for their own country to become prosperous. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were not so long ago unquestionable shitholes with horrid histories of oppression. But through a lot of hard work and persistence, they built themselves into First World countries that rivalled or exceeded those of Europe and North America. If they can do it, any country in the world can do it.

    Immigration of the "best and brightest" to the US does not solve the problem, in fact it worsens it.

  • Zeb||

    The best thing for Indians, and for denizens of every other country, is for their own country to become prosperous.

    Depends on whether you are considering people as individuals or as a collective. That might be the best thing for the countries' populations. But clearly not for the individuals who emigrate in most cases. So from a collectivist point of view you are right. From an individualist point of view, people should do what's best for themselves and their families.

  • Mark22||

    From an individualist point of view, people should do what's best for themselves and their families.

    It may be "best" for me to build a cabin on Eric Schmidt's lawn and live there. That doesn't make it "best" for Eric Schmidt, and it doesn't make it legal or ethical to do so.

    The UDHR is pretty clear: you have a right to emigrate from your country, but there is no obligation for other countries to let you immigrate. It's analogous to how private property works, and it's the same way immigration would work in a libertarian world.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Mark22,

    It's analogous to how private property works


    It's not. Only individuals own property, not "countries".

    But I'm glad Trumpistas are dropping any pretense of being for private property ownership, contracts and voluntary associations. It is clear they're quite the collectivist assholes they pretend not to be when they're compared to their brethren on the left.

  • Mark22||

    It's not. Only individuals own property, not "countries".

    In a libertarian society, only individuals own property. In a US/European-style nation state, there is massive collective ownership. I don't like it and would like to change that, but it is the law of the land.

    It is clear they're quite the collectivist assholes they pretend not to be

    As far as I'm concerned, you are the "collectivist asshole".

  • ||

    When an immigrant comes to the US, they get jobs from willing employers, and rent or purchase properties from willing sellers. At no point in this process are they legally squatting on land against the wishes of it's owners. And as has been explained 1000 times the US government does not own all the land in the country. If an immigrant builds a cabin on your neighbors lawn with his approval, he's not building a cabin on your lawn.
    The US is not one giant HOA rules by a bunch of restrictive deed covenants.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The US is not one giant HOA rules by a bunch of restrictive deed covenants.

    Are you familiar with what "fee simple title" means?

  • Mark22||

    When an immigrant comes to the US, they get jobs from willing employers, and rent or purchase properties from willing sellers.

    They also drive on publicly owned roads, are covered by public social programs, are protected by public safety organizations, are defended by the US military, can force their association on businesses and employers, and use a lot of other public infrastructure and services that they never paid for.

    The US is not one giant HOA rules by a bunch of restrictive deed covenants.

    No, but neither is it a libertarian state. The US is a progressive welfare state, with limited rights and obligations. In particular, as a US citizen, I give up my right to make individual decisions about freedom of association and I have to pay into a massive social welfare system, but in return I gain the collective right to vote on who may or may not enter the country. You want to take away the latter right without restoring the former, and that's not acceptable to me. It's also not libertarian.

  • Zeb||

    One of my objections is to the idea that the government gets to decide for me whether I want a immigrant to build a cabin on my lawn or not. You are absolutely correct that no one has a right to immigrate to just anywhere they want. But I insist that I do have the right to allow whomever I want to use my property, or to employ whomever I want to.

  • Zeb||

    it's the same way immigration would work in a libertarian world.

    Yes, but in that case, it would be up to the individual property owner, not the government. You absolutely have the right to exclude whomever you want from your own property. But you don't have a right to tell me who I must exclude from mine.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Great. If you own private property right on the border, maybe you should be allowed to bring illegals there. And if your neighbor agrees, you can bring them to his property too.

    But once you cross government property, then you need to follow government rules. I don't think that's a very far distance from the border in most places.

    If somebody who owns property along the border objects to the wall being built there, then fine. Leave a gap in the wall on their property, so they can be the ones who deal with the drug gangs and coyotes and human smugglers. Pretty sure the property will be cheaper to buy via eminent domain before long.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you kidding? If I owned that property, I'd be making a killing setting up rest areas, lemonade stands and brothels for the passersby in no time. Hire Blackwater to provide security and let the cash mo-neys rain.

    Extolling the terrors of narcotic trafficking and the virtues of eminent domain doesn't sound very libertarian. I for one prefer to extol the terrors of the latter and the virtues of the former.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The "passersby" are going to have to evade border security once they reach govt property. So it's doubtful you'd get any other than the ones who are already able to do so.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Oh, so there wouldn't be a funneling effect of smugglers towards my property in that situation? Then I guess my property value (/prospects as drug cartel lemonade stand proprietor) won't degrade after all. Well, except for the part where you'll have just walled me out of my own country because I refused to subordinate my privately owned property to the Will Of The Collective(TM)(C)(R).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    CORRECTION: (though my prospects as drug cartel lemonade stand proprietor *would* {degrade})

  • Deflator Mouse||

    You misunderstand. Drug gangs and human traffickers are already fairly adept at avoiding pre-wall border patrols. So they'll cross the border at your property (thanks to there not being a wall there) and from there continue to use the avoidance tactics they use today.

    Whereas lemonade stand patrons probably won't.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You think illegal immigrants, drug mules and cartel enforcers don't like lemonade and brothels?

    Or are you saying that the border patrol is going to continue to patrol my property even though I was exempted from the wall, thus deterring my patrons from partaking of the activities and complimentary beverages I had so diligently prepared for them? As it happens, I don't see any difference between the government trespassing on my land with "an SUV full of guys who couldn't make it through Army boot camp" or with "a 30-foot-high solar-panel-encrusted cement boondoggle", so in order for this exemption to have any relevance, I'ma need full exemption from any ICE/CBP/DHS/etc. presence or authority on my property. Letting me opt out of the Anti-Socialist Protection Barrier, without letting me opt out of the Motorized Guards patrolling it, does not count as a concession to private sovereignty.

  • Mark22||

    But you don't have a right to tell me who I must exclude from mine.

    You also don't have a right to make me pay for police, roads, cable, insurance, social welfare, schooling, etc. related to the people you bring onto your property, yet that's what I have to do under current law. And those obligations exist for me even if your guests never leave your property. So, right now, I have non-libertarian obligations balanced out by non-libertarian rights to tell you what to do with your not-so-private property.

    As I have been saying before: I'm happy to have you sponsor whoever you like to come onto your property as long as someone pays the average amount of per capita spending for each such person to the government. Currently, that's about $25000/person/year. The nice thing about such a rule is that as we approach a more libertarian society, that amount goes to zero, at which point we have successfully achieved libertarian property rights and libertarian immigration.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    As I have been saying before: I'm happy to have you sponsor whoever you like to come onto your property as long as someone pays the average amount of per capita spending for each such person to the government. Currently, that's about $25000/person/year

    Once again you fail to account for the costs of enforcement. Combined ICE/CBP budget was 20 B$ in 2016 and Trump would have to double it to actually remove all those illegals and build the wall- plus not all of them will be removed no matter how harsh the crackdown, so you can't completely eliminate that 116 B$ welfare cost no matter what you do. (Not to mention that 116 B$ number comes from very anti-immigrant outfits- you wouldn't trust gun numbers from Brady or Everytown, would you?). Add in consumer losses from heightened labor costs, and you the taxpayer will be very lucky to break even...

    ...while further enshrining interior checkpoints and deporting 10s of 1000s of US citizens caught by accident. You know 1% of people in DHS custody actually aren't illegals, right? Multiply that by 12.5 million and see if you're still as sure that you're protecting American citizens with this campaign.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    *apply that to 12.5 million

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Ah, looks like libertarians aren't above using shaming language. But being aware of what's best for groups of people does not make you a collectivist. Indeed, by your logic, the "collectivist" epithet could be applied to open-borders aficianados who argue for increased immigration using economic statistics. Which makes the following all the more hilarious:

    From an individualist point of view, people should do what's best for themselves and their families.

    It's well-nigh inarguable that what's best for me and my family is not to allow myself to be undercut by cheap competition from foreign workers comfortable with lower standards of living.

  • Zeb||

    Not trying to shame anyone. I'm just describing what I see. You can attach what value you want to "collectivist".

    My position on immigration is all about individual rights. You are right that the argument that immigration is good for the country is also a collectivist one.

    And the last point is looking from the immigrant's perspective. I understand that what is beneficial for one person may not be so for another. I was responding to the claim that potential emigrants should do what is best for their country of origin and not what's best for themselves.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I was responding to the claim that potential emigrants should do what is best for their country of origin and not what's best for themselves.

    I don't recall making that claim. Rather I was stating that mass immigration from shithole countries is not what's best for the majority of people in those countries. Of course it's better for those who emigrate from the shitholes. This is important when open borders aficianados claim that opposition to mass immigration from a country must be due to animus against the people of that country.

    On the contrary, if I hated Haitians, the best way to create as much misery as possible for them would be to import the best and brightest from Haiti, as well as letting the Haitian government get rid of dissatisfied people who might make trouble for them.

  • Ecoli||

    I was in the Army in 1972 and stationed in Korea. It was very much a third-world country then. Today, Korea is a very advanced, prosperous country.

    It is amazing what hard work, and a relatively honest government can accomplish in less than 50 years, isn't it?

    Fix your own country and culture, then maybe I will emigrate there.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Ecoli,

    Fix your own country and culture, then maybe I will emigrate there.


    What's interesting is that you are establishing your position with the underlying assumption thar you DO have the right to emigrate.

    You see, Trumpistas want to have it both ways: they say NO one has the right to migrate but at the same time they agree with the president that "we" don't need people from shithole countries (rather they want Norwegians to migrate in) which does imply people from all those countries DO have a right to migrate, it is just that Trump and Trumpistas don't want them to.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    What's interesting is that you are establishing your position with the underlying assumption thar you DO have the right to emigrate.

    Where is he assuming that? He didn't say that his attempt to emigrate would be successful.

    Indeed, if an American wants to emigrate to Japan or Australia (not sure about S Korea) they would almost certainly be rejected.

  • Tony||

    What else about the policies of the national governments of Japan and Australia do you admire?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Hitler.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well Tony, Japan and Australia don't have you.

  • Mark22||

    What's interesting is that you are establishing your position with the underlying assumption thar you DO have the right to emigrate.

    International law and human rights are sensible and clear on these points: everybody has a right to emigrate from wherever they are living, but no country is obligated to let you immigrate. Emigration is a right, immigration is a privilege. If nobody grants you that privilege, you obviously can't migrate.

    That's the typical libertarian deal. You have a right to work, but nobody is obligated to employ you. You have a right to buy and sell stuff, but nobody is obligated to transact with you. You have a right to leave your private property, but nobody is obligated to let you enter their neighboring property.

  • IceTrey||

    I don't think the northern half of Korea is very advanced or prosperous.

  • Tony||

    Just differences in culture.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Re: Deflator Mouse,

    The best thing for Indians, and for denizens of every other country, is for their own country to become prosperous.


    And of course you, being omniscient, can say what's best for everyone without sounding arrogant and condescending, in your humble opinion.

  • vek||

    Seriously, as someone who is part Mexican, but not a fucking retarded piece of shit cunt like you... I fucking hate you you wet back beaner fuck.

    Seriously. You're SOOOOO over the top with accusing racism and blah blah blah. If America is so evil, and we're all so racist then PLEASE just move to Mexico! Mexico isn't bad for people with an education. The middle/upper class does quite nicely actually. So go there, and stop bitching.

    I don't want illiterate fucks from ANY country to move here. Including Germany or Norway or Japan or whatever. We don't need their high school drop outs any more than we need beaner high school drop outs from Mexico, or completely illiterate people from Haiti. That doesn't make me a racist, it makes me smart. We already have millions of unemployed low education morons that were born here, you don't import more of a resource you are already over stocked on!

  • Zeb||

    Well, good reminder why I don't come here on weekends anymore.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    So it appears that Dick Durbin is going on record saying that Trump did indeed use the SH word.

    Durbin said that he and Graham talked about people living in the United States on "temporary protected status" — people from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti.

    Trump then told the senators, " 'Haitians — we don't need more Haitians,'" Durbin said. Then Trump began talking about immigration from Africa. "That's when he used those sickening, heartbreaking remarks, saying, 'Those shitholes send us the people that they don't want.' He repeated that. He didn't just say it one time."

    Interestingly, this is not the same phrasing originally reported by the Washington Post, so Durbin is not exactly backing up the previous reports.

    Of course he also inserts some leftist SJW ridiculousness:

    "I said to [Trump] that that term, 'chain migration,' was so hurtful to so many people, particularly to African-Americans, who remind us that they migrated to America in chains. He said, 'That's a good line,' dismissing it," Durbin said.
  • GILMORE™||

    "I said to trump, "some people take absurd exception to words like, 'chain', because slavery", and he looked at me like i was an idiot. he popped a diet coke and said, "whatever".

  • DiegoF||

    He said, 'That's a good line,' dismissing it."

    I've been mildly anti-Trump on this whole incident, thinking it showed incredibly poor judgment on his part. (At issue is the propriety, not the truth, of his statement; and it beggars belief how anyone with an ounce of common sense could think he was in a room with people with whom he could speak so freely, who would not create an international incident to score the political points. He might as well have said it into a live mic.)

    However, I take it all back with this revelation. If Dick Durban really is telling the truth about Trump's reaction to his "chain migration" comment, then his self-control is exquisite. "He said, 'That's a good line,' dismissing it"? Donald Trump is the greatest diplomat since Tallyrand.

  • Ecoli||

    Dick Durbin should do porn. He already has a suitable name for it.

  • Vernon Depner||

    And what is "durbing"?

  • SQRLSY One||

    I find that this whole idea is very dickdurbing to me! Waaaaa!!!!

  • Tony||

    Thanks to our president, I now know what a Sloppy Steve is.

  • poptart||

    you used your walmart bonus to go buy one?

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I would pay up to $10 for the video of him and mattress girl. #MeToo

  • Lawn Darts||

    The two statements have very different meanings. At least they do to me. Perhaps English is not Durbin's first language, so he's OK with equating two different versions of the thing he claims he heard? I'm somewhat ambivalent about:

    "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?"—Washington Post, Jan 12

    as it's difficult to put your finger on what it means because it doesn't assign responsibility to the condition of "shithole'-ness, or even who it applies to. The citizens? The land mass? The management? The sewage treatment facilities? It's vague. But the second version:

    "Those shitholes send us the people that they don't want."— Chicago Suns Times, Jan 13

    is totally different. The second means that the "assholes" running the "shitholes" are selectively sending non-model citizens. It's far easier to find a legitimate national interest in there. (I suspect it's not an accurate description of the emigration mechanism, but I'm not privy to any actual intelligence there, so what do I know.)

    What I find most annoying about Durbin's attitude is that he can equate these two alleged utterances as having the same (offensive) meaning. As if the exact words used don't matter. Then he turns around and whines that the word "chain" matters so much that it shall be excised from the language. Infuriating!

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I personally think the Durbin version of Trump's statement is more insulting. Not only does it insult the country in question like the WaPo version does, it also insults the people who come from it as being undesirable even by their own country.

  • Lawn Darts||

    They've both been presented as Durbin's version (of something someone else said). And, yes, they both insult someone. The first is a non-specific insult. But the second version only insults people that their own county is already insulting. It in no way implicates people those countries don't want to get rid of.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I think you've got it backwards. The second statement says "if you are a person who came here from Haiti, then you were unwanted by Haiti". Which is insulting to all the people who came here from Haiti.

    Regardless, outside of extreme examples like the Mariel boatlift, that's not how emigration tends to happen.

  • Vernon Depner||

    ...outside of extreme examples like the Mariel boatlift...

    I'm not so sure that the current mass migration out of the Arab world isn't similarly planned.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Hmm. To me, the word "send" (in the present tense) doesn't condemn people who came here long ago. Anyone who is "sent" is presumed to have a "sender", which must be their government in this sentence? Since governments change over time, and stresses on populations change over time, I have to be open to the idea that it's the current govt. which is accused of getting rid of undesirables in a more recent timeframe. I suppose I could read more tenses into it, but why? And regardless of timeframe, the two statements are very different in intent to me. Durbin wants me to believe they are equal. He fails. To me, they are not equal.

    We seem to agree though, that most emigration is an "I want to go" rather than a "get out of here" impulse. Thinking about my own ancestors, only one was "sent" here. I suspect a couple others were indentured servants, and that is a grey area. If you sign on to indentured servitude in a foreign land, rather than face debtor's prison or hanging by Jack Ketch in your native land, is that a "go" or a "send"? (And today we'd call that "human trafficking".) So we are only debating the meaning of the words allegedly spoken, rather than the correctness of the sentiment. But either way, if you or your ancestors are from one of these countries, it has to make you sad.

  • Mark22||

    it also insults the people who come from it as being undesirable even by their own country.

    As a gay libertarian, the country I came from certainly considered me "undesirable". I consider that a badge of honor.

    And as a gay libertarian, I also consider most of my former compatriots to be "undesirable" and hope they will be kept out of the US.

    I consider neither observation an insult.

  • Tony||

    Immigration is an inherently collectivist subject. I certainly have no problem with people expressing a hodgepodge of policy preferences. I don't think it's a good idea to stick to a strict and unyielding political ideology. But if you insist that our entire society must conform to a cult of individualism, then even talking about immigration policy is stepping over the boundary of that.

    And any words spent talking about it from the other direction are wasted if they're not pointing out the obvious, that this is about racist fuckholes worried about the sanctity of the precious white gene pool. None of the rhetoric makes any goddamn sense except in that context. People go out of their way to be ignorant of the facts of immigration in this country in order to defend stupid racist positions.

  • poptart||

    "Immigration is an inherently collectivist subject"

    only if you're an idiot.

  • Tony||

    A single immigrant is hardly going to have macroeconomic or eugenic consequences.

  • poptart||

    Mr. Soros thinks you're an idiot.

  • poptart||

    By the way, you can see here why Tony is against Citizens United. He actually believes what he said.

  • vek||

    But we don't have single immigrants, we have millions of immigrants with similar educational/cultural/national ties... And Yes, even RACIAL aspects. Nobody would be complaining if one Haitian moved here, or 1 Mexican... But when entire states have turned into looking more like Mexico than the USA, people notice. My home state of California is basically Mexico now in many parts.

  • Mark22||

    But if you insist that our entire society must conform to a cult of individualism, then even talking about immigration policy is stepping over the boundary of that.

    I'd like our society to move towards individualism. Eventually, that means open borders, but only after abolishing the welfare state.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    Indeed, by most objective metrics Indian Americans are the most successful group in America.

    Of course, what you leave out of that statement is that, as we do not have open borders with India, the Indians that come here are hardly average Indians. If we did indeed allow every Indian in India to migrate to the US, the results would be very, very different.

    As this fellow points out:

    The median IQ of Indians in the country of India is 82. The median IQ for the continent of India is 84.

    The mean IQ of Indians in the country of India is 82.69, while the mean IQ for the continent of India is 82.87.

    For Indians in the United States, I only know of two sources for estimates. One is some unpublished SAT data from 1990, which gives Indian SAT test takers an average score of 1029, which translates to an IQ of 110.84 compared to a white SAT of 934 which translates to an IQ of 103.96.

    If the white IQ is set to 100 in this sample, then the Indian IQ would be 106.62

    The other comes from a Forbes article which estimates the IQ of Indian children of 112 based on a backwards digit-span test.

    I don't have a good estimate, but I would guess that the average Indian IQ in the US is 106, just rounding down from the SAT number because they probably do more SAT test prep than whites.

    IQs of Indians
  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    What you're doing is comparable to importing only whites with Ivy League degrees to India, and then boasting about how much better they're succeeding than the native population.

    Of course, even India would never put up with having a high achieving overclass of foreigners imported to take over their country. I believe that had a bit of a row with the British over that. So why should we put up with it, either?

  • gormadoc||

    Because we don't take policy directions from shitholes? If their IQ is so bad that we can't let them in our country, as they'll apparently fuck up their own lives and their neighbors', wtf would we pretend their decisions on organizing everybody's lives are intelligent?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Brits turned them into an opium farm and charged them a salt tax at gunpoint. India is where Cornwallis went to enslave more docile folk after getting his ass kicked in 'Murrica! Orwell's Burmese Days was illegal under the Raj. By my lights the Brits deserved the mutinies (during the Opium Wars) and the Black Hole was too good for 'em!

  • Wanderer||

    Nice point

  • JFree||

    estimates the IQ of Indian children of 112 based on a backwards digit-span test

    Please explain further. Do you have a newsletter.

  • gormadoc||

    A lot of people apparently don't understand how IQ works. It's not a raw measure of intelligence, as it ideally would be. It's a measure of aptitude for a specific sort of test. We use it because they are correlated, but they are less strongly correlated when we test populations the test wasn't designed for. For example, it's estimated that Americans in the 1930s would score around 80-85 on tests now. We wouldn't expect an increase of an entire SD from the mean unless the tests have some systematic error in them. If they were accurate, our grandparents would be nearly retarded, and I can't believe that. IQ tests don't work as well on people with autism, either.

    IQ tests are terrible for comparison between societies, as well. These tests are usually done on kids in a variety of age ranges, from 7-14 (individual tests usually limit this to 2-3 years). The West loves our pre-primary school education, even though it doesn't show much effect by junior high/middle school. We also have damn good education, especially compared to shitholes. But it does show an effect on IQ scores. In countries where such schooling (good and early) isn't readily available, they will of course score less, but not because of a lack of cognitive ability.

  • gormadoc||

    They still work relatively well for ordering individuals within an IQ spread; someone with 100 IQ is probably smarter than somebody with 80 IQ, if they were measured with the same test and are of the same group. They don't work well for comparing the two spreads to each other (7-10 year olds and 12-14 year olds, for instance). The fact that they use identical rating systems is misleading. They are geared for testing the individual's acquisition of topics compared to their age and what is expected. Not every country or state has the same expectations and cultures do not raise their children identically. In India (and El Salvador, Mexico, China, the Congo, etc.), many people still plan on living as their ancestors have lived for thousands of years. They don't need to raise their child for the future learning of math or literature; just farming, ranching, or herding. These things aren't tested by IQ tests in the West; applying them to non-Westerners is not a prudent measurement.

    In short, IQ scores do not actually directly measure cognitive ability or intelligence. You only need to look at the fact that whenever they introduce a new test as "the standard" that raw IQ (before normalization) scores change noticeably.

  • vek||

    Here's the problem dude... IQ scores correlate perfectly to life outcomes. I agree it isn't a perfect way to measure intelligence, but it is good enough to draw conclusions. The fact is that certain countries kill it on IQ scores. Those countries do well, and in fact have stereotypes of being smart. Like Asians. The sheer number of IQ tests done, and the strong correlations are too much to ignore.

    Especially when these IQ scores tend to follow people across oceans, and in different societies. Asians in the USA do good just likes Asians in Asia. Blacks do poorly in America just as blacks do in Africa. Mexicans in the USA do middle of the road just as Mexicans in Mexico do.

    There are strong genetic components. I am firmly of this belief after all the reading I have done on the subject. Anybody who can't accept that after reading up on the subject objectively is being willfully ignorant because they don't like the conclusion... The fact is that 100,000 years of divergent evolution between certain human groups versus others produced some differences in mental outcomes as well as a ton of physical differences.

    It's not how I'd want it to be, but it's the conclusion the facts support. As a mostly white guy I don't take offense that Jews have the highest score of any ethnic group, followed by Asians... So I don't see where others than score lower than whites should take any more offense than I do.

  • Flinch||

    I'll second that. It is not simply the person that is tested, but there is an embedded societal component alongside schooling methods that are an embedded and inescapable feature. I have my own prejudices regarding the premium on cleverness, which may devoid of wisdom and occasionally intelligence itself. One of the biggest nitwits I have ever met in my life was a Mensa guy - he tested well, but life kicked him in the teeth on a regular basis. One particular instance was he had a fuel pump failure on his car - a $60 part at that time, as it was a mechanical pump on a small block. Two bolts, two hoses and... what could be simpler, right? Well, he thought to have the car towed for repairs and somehow the tow truck driver [seeing the vehicle was in otherwise brilliant shape despite the engine not running] offered him $50 for the car. He signed it over to him on the spot.

  • vek||

    That's why it isn't a perfect measure. Common sense isn't measured in IQ tests. Other positive personality traits aren't either, like being outgoing. In fact IQ negatively correlates with good interpersonal skills. Hence the awkward genius sterotype. It's based in truth!

    But on the whole IQ correlates with almost every measure of success. There are always exceptions to any rule, but the rule still stands.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    A lot of people apparently don't understand how IQ works. It's not a raw measure of intelligence, as it ideally would be.

    I understand them well enough, thankyouverymuch. While you may want to split hairs about whether or not they measure "raw intelligence", the fact is that whatever they're measuring, they very strongly correlate with life outcomes such as educational and economic achievement. In other words, whether or not you want to argue that what IQ tests are actually measuring is intelligence, whatever they're measuring certainly correlates with an individual's ability to succeed in a modern industrial western society.

    Given that in the case of immigration, that's exactly what we're interested in knowing, your criticisms are interesting, and possibly even valid, but irrelevant.

    BTW, given your assertion that IQ tests are culturally biased (in fact, most modern ones aren't, but we'll make that assumption for the sake of argument, anyway), you would think it would be trivial to design a test that would be biased in favor of populations that typically don't perform well on them would outperform populations that typically do. Say, you could design an IQ test on which Africans typically outperformed East Asians. Do you know of any case where any such test was successfully designed? I don't, and it sure hasn't been for lack of people trying!

  • vek||

    Such a test doesn't exist! And the cultural bias argument doesn't explain why some non white cultures do great, and other fail, including ones steeped in western culture, like Mexico. It's a bullshit argument.

    As is the "It's 100% Environmental" argument. How is it that poor, undernourished Asians still score high on these tests, while better fed Mexicans do not? It too is bullshit, although it's no PC to say so. I frankly don't care anymore. In the 21st century they're going to keep finding genes that relate to intelligence... And they're going to find that some groups have higher percentages of said genes... And then lefties will jump in to discredit still more valid science because it doesn't fit their desired narrative.

  • Mark22||

    IQ tests are terrible for comparison between societies, as well.

    You're missing the point here. Open borders advocates, progressives, and socialists belief that human beings are blank slates, that the main obstacle to success of immigrants in the US is discrimination and maybe culture, and that the main cause of poverty and failure is historical oppression by European imperialists. That belief is utterly unscientific and irrational. IQ doesn't explain all the variability between immigrants, but it is clearly and demonstrably a significant factor. The point of mentioning it is not to propose it as a selection criterion, but simply to provide an alternative to the obviously absurd "blank slate" beliefs.

    From a policy point of view, it doesn't matter where differences between immigrant groups come from. What we know is that, as a matter of policy, a combination of merit-based admission and discrimination based on country of origin makes for a better immigration policy for the US.

  • JNYC||

    Trump's immigration plan, outlined last fall, would favor the educated and skilled regardless of origin. His question is "what can they do for us?" Clearly he had you in mind, Shikha. Despite his rhetoric, he welcomes diamonds in the rough from sh!tholes, but that is a selective process. Prior to Trump I had great difficulty hiring and getting Green Cards for high qualified highly educated Asian born workers. Let's hope Trump's proposals change that.

  • Flinch||

    No the streets of America aren't lined with gold - but they're lined with opportunity. We don't have to be from the "right" family, a special region, or have to have political connections to change our stars. It's a rare thing, historically. To that end, if you have never been out of the country find a way to do it. You can approximate a S*hole by a short trip to Tijuana, Mexico (for example)if that's all you can afford - just go with friends for your own security, and I recommend buying insurance valid there. If police accost you, chalk it up as "random taxation", then figure out what is cheaper: their corruption, or the institutionalized kaleidoscope of costs managed from DC. Haiti [or any other authentic hole] is flat out dangerous, with raw sewage in open ditches, desperate people, etc.

  • vek||

    I can't read all the previous comments, but my favorite (sarc) Indian American writer just explained EXACTLY why we should NOT let in hordes of people at random.

    Indian Americans are only so successful because the vast majority of them 1. Came in through the legal process which has a lot of hoops to jump. and 2. Specifically H1B program, which is even more selective than general immigration.

    In other words we ONLY let in the best of the best... And SURPRISE SURPRISE, they all did awesome. If we were only letting in Mexican engineers and doctors nobody would be bitching about Mexican immigration! This is all almost anybody who complains about immigration has been asking for the whole fucking time!

    If we let in any random Indian off the street, based off of their statistical education levels etc in the home country, they would probably be as poor or poorer on average as Haitian immigrants or whatever. Our selectivity is the only reason she can come off being all cocky and arrogant. Nobody things that there isn't a single valuable person in any of those countries, only that the vast majority of the population in some places is basically useless in a 21st century post industrial society. Which is totally true.

  • vek||

    So America would benefit economically at least. I would still argue if the numbers are large enough we could be fucking up our politics/culture in some ways, AKA importing socialist belief systems etc... BUT at least they'd be paying fucking taxes.

    The flip side of this skimming the best of the best from shit hole countries is that while we're artificially improving our brain power, we're also stealing it away from their home countries, which frankly need it more than us. The above average intelligence person, the outright genius, those are the people that move civilization forward. The 80 IQ janitor may work and support himself, which is good, but he doesn't really advance a nation at all.

    So stealing all the high IQ people from India, or Haiti, or Somalia, or Mexico or whatever will in fact incrementally make them even shittier countries. That's just reality. The question is do we want to steal the economic benefits for ourselves because it is useful for us, even if it has political downsides, or do we want to not accept immigrants so they have to stay in their home nations and be productive there?

    Personally I think we should not let in as many people as we do now, but they should be 100% high education. That way we won't fuck up our culture too bad, assimilation will have time to work, and we also won't be sucking all the brains out of anywhere in particular.

  • Africanis||

    Wow, Trump mentioned Indians, then again according to Seinfeld jokes you shouldn't go to India because it still has the plague and according to the press the men like to rape. Norwegians can stay, they would probably vote for more government, they like Californians are a plague to red states. Norway is stable, Haiti is not and most of Africa is a basket case.

  • MJBinAL||

    Hello Shitma,

    Trump says some really poorly expressed things. However, his pointing out that places like Haiti are shitholes (and Haiti IS a shithole) is not racist. It is that thing you had most of all ... factual.

    It has nothing to do with the race of the people there, it has to do with a place where socialist government and corruption have destroyed the country. A place where property rights are now well established and therefore no one invests in anything. It is a .. shithole.

    Everything you write is full of lies, misrepresentation, distortion, misdirection, and twisted invalid logic. Your actual views are not now, now have there every been libertarian, you are a progressive through and through.

    There are lost of Americans of Indian descent that I like and respect. You are just not one of them.

  • MJBinAL||

    I have a typo, "property rights are NOT well established"

    Wish we could edit our comments.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You misspelled delete.

  • spec24||

    This article is no better than the left presenting some anecdotal story of some family whose child would have died if not for socialized medicine. Thanks, reason. You found people who didn't come to suck off the US milk tit. No one is doubting the idea that there are people from Haiti and other shitholes that come here, succeed, and don't collect welfare. Perhaps instead of these bullshit anecdotes you'd do better to present REAL data and let us know what percentage of people with an average IQ of 67 are coming here, not collecting welfare and becoming successful compared to those people with and average IQ of 100 who are coming here, going on welfare, and not being successful.

  • spec24||

    Indian Americans are the top earners in the United States. Haitians are 85th out of 103!!! It's easy to put forward Indians who are successful (no doubt the ones who came from the upper crest of their racist caste system - relax, I know there's always exceptions yo can dig up). So... yeah.. maybe some more people from India and a few less from Haiti isn't a terrible idea.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Bravo! These States were colonized by fugitives from the rotting empires of Europe and Asia. Folks like Shikha Johnny Von Neumann and Petr Beckmann make 'Murica more worthwhile to inhabit. Maybe we could have an twofer exchange program to export socialists and Saracen berserkers and import more individualists?

  • chan chan studios||

    aiding and abetting the immigration invasion is treason

  • Lasciata||

    They still let this clown write columns for Reason? I would have thought they'd have fired her long, long ago.

  • Locris||

    "Indian Americans: America's Shithole Success Story"
    Interesting.
    According to (Saint) Obama, we as Americans are only a very small part of the worlds population, but we, (as Americans) outpace our consumption of resources as compared to the rest of the world.
    Keeping this in mind, should we also stop "consuming" the best and brightest that other countries have to offer?

  • Dr. Benjamin Dover||

    You label your own country as a s$$$hole country and then praise the people of said country? Baffling logic. Country People. Reason and logic need to be reintroduced into our educational system.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online